2025 (4) TMI 1009

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ying deficit Court fees stand allowed. 2. The appeal impugns an order dated 9 March 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, in which paragraphs 2 to 6 read as under: "2. The petitioner has, in respect of the returns for a few months during the period 2017~18, admittedly, committed certain errors. The errors are of following nature. i) Recipients GSTIN/name has been wrongly mentioned. ii) The invoice number/date have been wrongly mentioned. iii) Supply details were correctly supplied in GSTR 3 and tax duly remitted. However, some of the invoice wise details have been omitted to be reported in Form GSTR 1. iv) IGST was inadvertantly remitted under the heads SGST and CGST. 3. The afores....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Writ Petition, have not really been disputed. 3. In paragraph 7, it is noted that learned Senior Standing Counsel did not raise any dispute on the sequence of events as narrated above, but submitted that there was no mechanism available as on that date to issue mandamus as sought, i.e., to direct respondents (appellants herein) to enable petitioner (respondent herein) to rectify the clerical errors in the details uploaded by petitioner (respondent herein) in its GSTR 1 forms for the year 2017-18 by amending the Forms. 4. Learned Single Judge relying on judgment of Sun Dye Chem V. Assistant Commissioner 2021 (44) GSTL 358 and Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. V. Office of the GST Council, New Delhi 2021 (52) GSTL 129, permitted th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& Cusoms and Ors. (2024) 105 GST 585 (Bombay), had allowed the assessee to amend/rectify the form GSTR 1. Against that order, a special leave petition was referred by the Revenue, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21 March 2025. While dismissing the SLP, the Apex Court was pleased to observe as under: "The petitioner, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, must re-examine the provisions /time lines fixed for correcting the bonafide errors. Time lines should be realist as lapse/defect invariably is realized when input tax credit is denied to the purchaser when benefit of tax paid is denied. Purchaser is not at fault, having paid the tax amount. He suffers because he is denied benefit of tax paid by him. Consequently,....